You may be getting bored with my posts. I’m sorry but I am continuing to report injustice and that is never boring. Elsevier is still apparently behaving illegally and they don’t care.
Here’s a story from today. Thanks to Sheffield for sending this in.
The tweets point to the paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810013001396 which was authored at the University of Sheffield. I and the rest of the world interpret this as follows:
- @OpenAccessSheffield has first-hand or good second-hand evidence that the paper came from Sheffield and that the authors paid for Open Access with a CC-BY licence.
- Elsevier failed to provide it, so they complained
- Elsevier changed it to Open Access but failed to change the licence.
But apparently #elsevier think it’s OK to provide a different licence:
Yes, Director. This is the whole point. Sheffield asserts it is NOT CC-BY-NC-ND. They paid for CC-BY and you repeatedly failed to provide it. You are still failing to provide it and apparently still don’t care.
Even if Sheffield is wrong (and I doubt it), #Elsevier have still mislabelled the article as (C) Elsevier, All rights reserved
Do you have any idea how demeaning it is to pay for something and repeatedly be fobbed off with excuses and substandard products. And have to try to explain to the funders that actually it is the publishers’ fault. A publisher who either doesn’t understand the difference between CC-BY and CC-NC-ND or doesn’t care.
I would encourage Sheffield to (a) take this to their local trading office and (b) write to David Willetts as I have done.
My suspicion is that a large number of “open access” articles are mislabelled. Only the authors (and possibly Elsevier) know which they are. So please keep reporting them to show that Elsevier’s behaviour is now intolerable.